Understanding Title III and Electronic Surveillance Law

Illustration of a gavel, legal books, and electronic surveillance devices like wiretaps and cameras, in a courtroom setting with a legal scale in the background.

Understanding Title III and Electronic Surveillance Law

Test your knowledge of Title III and electronic surveillance law with our comprehensive quiz designed for aspiring legal professionals and enthusiasts alike. This quiz covers various aspects of the law regarding wiretaps, electronic communications, surveillance techniques, and the legal ramifications surrounding these actions.

Featuring 26 multiple-choice questions, you will be challenged to apply your understanding of legal principles:

  • Explore scenarios involving wire communications
  • Understand the requirements for obtaining warrants
  • Examine the legality of surveillance methods in specific contexts
26 Questions6 MinutesCreated by InvestigatingJustice42
Assuming no one gives consent, which of the following would require a Title III court order?
A. Intercepting tone only pager signals using a device.
B. Using GPS and other mobile tracking devices.
C. Real time interceptions of wire communications using a device.
D. Real time interceptions of oral communications, in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (REP), using a device.
In which of the following situations would law enforcement officers need a Title III court order?
A. Listen in to a phone conversation among five people with the consent of only one party to the conversation.
B. Place a covert listening and recording device on a confidential informant (with his permission) to record conversations he has with the target of an investigation.
C. Conceal a microphone and transmitter in a vehicle to listen to the conversations that two targets have while in the vehicle.
D. Obtain the telephone numbers that a target is calling without the consent of the caller or the person receiving the call.
Agents know that Jack and Fred are members of a criminal conspiracy. To avoid their communications being intercepted by law enforcement, they only talk together when walking along trails in a local city park being careful to speak softly and avoid those that might be around who could overhear what they are saying. Agents decide to use a handheld parabolic microphone that can pick up human conversations at 250 feet without being detected. To lawfully use this device under these circumstances, what arrangements must the agents first make to comply with the law?
A. There are no special legal requirements.
B. Obtain a search warrant.
C. Request a Title III court order through the US Attorney for approval by a US Magistrate Judge.
D. Request a Title III court order through the US Attorney for approval by a US District Court judge.
Fred’s criminal enterprise involves sending and receiving faxes. Assume that agents have probable cause. Which is correct concerning how agents could obtain the faxes?
A. If the fax is in the process of being transmitted, agents could use a search warrant issued by a Magistrate Judge to connect a fax machine to Fred’s phone line and receive a copy of the fax as Fred gets his copy.
B. If the fax is in the process of being transmitted, agents could use a search warrant issued by a District Court judge to connect a fax machine to Fred’s phone line and receive a copy of the fax as Fred gets his copy.
C. If the fax is in the process of being transmitted, and there is also REP, agents could use a search warrant issued by a District Court judge to connect a fax machine to Fred’s phone line and receive a copy of the fax as Fred gets his copy.
D. If the agents have probable cause paper copies of the faxes are located in Fred’s house, they could use a search warrant issued by a Magistrate Judge.
Investigation reveals that a gang is operating a mobile meth lab and distributing large quantities of meth to various dealers. These dealers also move from location to location. Agents decide to use GPS and other tracking devices to try and determine where the current meth lab and dealers are. Which of the following activities would require the agents to obtain a warrant? (Assume that the gang members do not know of the agents’ activities.)
A. Tracking a GPS enabled cell phone in the pocket of a confidential informant with the informant’s consent while riding in the car with the gang members.
B. Concealing a GPS tracking device inside a box of meth production products (glassware, tubing, and the like), sending it to the target, and monitoring where the box moves along local highways and streets.
C. Concealing a GPS or radio frequency tracking device inside a small package of meth precursor chemicals, sending it to the target, and monitoring where the package goes to include inside homes and factory buildings.
D. None of the above, because the Stored Electronic Communications Act, and not 4th Amendment warrants, must be used for the installation or use of mobile tracking devices.
Agents have reasonable suspicion that Fred uses email and the telephone in support of his criminal activity. The investigation is not at the point where agents have probable cause to get a warrant, but knowing who Fred corresponds with by way of email or speaks with on the phone would be relevant to this ongoing criminal investigation. Agents are interested in obtaining any or all of the following: the email addresses and phone numbers of those who email Fred and those that Fred calls or emails. Which of the following is correct concerning what “paper” agents must use to obtain this information?
A. No paper can get this information because agents do not have probable cause.
B. No paper is necessary to get this information because Fred has no REP in this information.
C. A Pen Register court order for the incoming phone numbers and email addresses.
D. A Trap and Trace court order for the incoming phone numbers and email addresses.
Agents need to obtain a Pen Register or Trap and Trace court order. Which of the following is correct about who makes the request to the judge, what judge can approve it, and how long the court order is good for?
A. Agent requests, Magistrate Judge can issue, good for 60 days.
B. AUSA requests, Magistrate Judge can issue, good for 60 days.
C. AUSA requests, requires at least District Court approval, good for 45 days.
D. Agent requests, Magistrate Judge can issue, good for 45 days.
Agents want to use video only surveillance (no audio) to determine who has been pilfering items from a commercial facility. Agents have consent from the facility owner to install the camera. Which of the below is a correct statement of the legal authority agents will need when deciding what images to capture and where they can point the camera?
A. A TIII court order is necessary if the camera captures images from an area where people have REP.
B. Neither a search warrant nor a TIII is necessary no matter where the camera is pointed.
C. Because of the intrusiveness of capturing video of private activity, a warrant is required no matter where the camera is pointed.
D. If the camera is pointed at an REP area, a warrant is required.
Agents have probable cause that Jack runs a stolen credit card ring from his home computer in District A, and that others who are part of the ring buy and sell stolen credit cards in Districts B, and C. Agents develop probable cause that there is evidence that Jack has data stored on a web server located in District D. In addition, there is probable cause that Jack’s Internet Service provider in District D has unopened emails to Jack that have been in electronic storage for less than 90 days. Agents want all the evidence (emails and data), and they decide to use search warrants. Which statement is correct concerning which District the agents may lawfully obtain a warrant?
A. For all the information (data and emails), they can obtain a warrant only in District A.
B. For the data, they can obtain a warrant in Districts A, B, C or D.
C. For the emails, they can obtain a warrant in Districts A, B, C or D.
D. For the emails, they can obtain a warrant only in the District D.
Fred is lawfully arrested. He has a pager on his person. Can agents search this pager without a warrant?
A. Yes, because having a pager on one’s person when being arrested is consent to have it searched.
B. Yes, because searching the pager is within the scope of an SIA.
C. No, because the pager may contain wire or electronic communications and that requires a Title III court order.
D. No, because it is unreasonable to search without a warrant or Title III court order.
Fred is at a restaurant and is using his computer. An agent can see the screen from an adjoining table and sees the screen contains an email that clearly constitutes wire fraud. Asthe agent walks up, Fred furiously starts deleting files. The agent seizes the computer and then immediately searches it finding evidence of wire fraud. Was the seizure and search of Fred’s computer lawful?
A. Both the seizure and the search were lawful.
B. Neither the seizure nor the search were lawful.
C. The seizure was lawful; the search was not.
D. The seizure was unlawful; the search was lawful.
Agent Jones has a valid search warrant to search Fred’s computer hard drive for evidence of wire fraud. During and within the scope of the types of data the warrant authorizes a search for, Fred sees what is clearly evidence of larceny of government property (unrelated to the wire fraud crimes). Fred continues the search for wire fraud and sees more evidence of larceny. He seizes this evidence of the larceny. Was the evidence of the larceny lawfully seized?
A. ALL the evidence of the larceny was lawfully seized.
B. NONE of the evidence of the larceny was lawfully seized.
C. The first evidence of the larceny Fred saw was lawfully seized; the second and subsequent seizures were not.
D. The second and subsequent seizures of the larceny evidence were lawfully seized only if Fred first got another warrant before continuing his search after he first saw the evidence of the larceny.
What is the most significant difference in preparing a search warrant to search computers for data and a search warrant for physical items? A data warrant:
A. Does not have to particularly describe what is to be searched for.
B. Does not have to particularly describe the place or thing to be searched.
C. Does not require probable cause.
D. Must include a justification if agents want to conduct an off-site search.
Agents ask consent to search Fred’s computer. Fred gives consent. When agents go to search the computer, they see a CD labeled, “Child Porn collection 1” sitting by the keyboard. The CD is seized and is immediately searched. Was Fred’s consent legally sufficient to search the CD?
A. Yes, because a CD is something that can be read only with a computer.
B. Yes, because a CD is a computer component.
C. No, because the scope of consent did not include media not in the computer.
D. No, because consent is not a valid basis to search for data.
What is the applicability of the knock and announce statute (18 U.S.C. Section 3109) to the execution of search warrants of computers or for data?
A. The statute is not applicable.
B. The statute is applicable, but the exceptions are not.
C. The statute and its exceptions are both applicable.
D. While the statute and its exceptions may be applicable, exceptions do not arise in searches of computers or for data.
Which is a correct statement with respect to authenticating (laying a foundation for) computer or electronic data that is admitted into court?
A. Laying a foundation and authentication are not required.
B. While preventing data from being altered once it has been seized is important, once data is seized there is no need to prove who authored, possessed, and had the data in order to secure a conviction.
C. Circumstantial evidence, such as access to computers or data, fingerprints, and passwords, is valuable to prove who may have generated or had access to data.
D. The rules of evidence do not apply to trials that involve criminal possession of data.
Adam, an undercover FBI agent investigating bank robberies, Bob, an undercover DEA agent investigating how bank robbery money is being used to fuel the drug trade, and Charlie, a local bad guy, agree to rob the Federal Reserve Bank of Mudville, Ga. Have they formed the requisite intent for a federal conspiracy?
A. Yes, because three people to the agreement formulated the intent to violate federal law.
B. Yes, because there are at least two people to the agreement who formulated the intent to violate federal law.
C. No, because only one of the three people involved in the agreement can actually formulate the intent to violate federal law.
D. No, because it always takes more than 2 people to formulate the intent to violate federal law.
Adam, an undercover FBI agent investigating bank robberies, Bob, a recently fired Deputy Sheriff, and Charlie, a local bad guy, agree to rob the Federal Reserve Bank of Mudville, Ga. Do we have a federal conspiracy?
A. Yes, because we have two or more of the right people who formulated the intent to violate federal law.
B. Yes, because all three formulated the intent to violate federal law.
C. No, because only two of the three can formulate the intent to violate federal law.
D. No, because two of the three men have only formulated the intent to violate federal law.
Adam, an undercover FBI agent investigating bank robberies, along with Bob, a recently fired Deputy Sheriff, and Charlie, a local bad guy, agree to rob the Federal Reserve Bank of Mudville, USA. Once all 3 agree to rob the bank, Charlie, a former bank security specialist, locates the sketch of the bank he made in his spare time two years ago when he was considering robbing the bank. The sketch identifies the entrances and exits, as well as the perfect way to take the money from a specific bank teller without being observed by any of the bank cameras. Do we have a federal conspiracy?
A. Yes, because at least two or more of the right people formulated the intent to violate federal law and a member to the agreement has committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
B. Yes, because all three formulated the intent to violate federal law and an overt act has been committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the agreement.
C. No, because despite the overt act to commit the crime being accomplished, all three indicated they could formulate the intent to violate federal law, but only two had the capacity to formulate the intent.
D. No, despite having two or more of the right people who can formulate the intent, no overt act in furtherance of the agreement has been committed by a member of the agreement.
Dr. Jones is married to a federal employee. The good doctor hates the federal government and soon grows weary of his “federal” wife as well. Dr. Jones conspires with a hit man to kill his wife simply because she is a federal employee and for no other reason. He pays the hit man the going rate for a contract killing. Thereafter, unbeknownst to the hit man, the doctor’s wife unexpectedly dies of natural causes. Unaware that the wife has already died, the hit man uses the contract killing money to buy a rifle to use in the murder. Do we have a conspiracy?
A. No, because the overt act of obtaining the rifle committed by a party to the agreement, took place after the wife died.
B. No, because the object of the agreement cannot be completed – the wife died before she could be killed.
C. Yes, but only because the object of the agreement could be achieved when the agreement was made prior to the wife’s death.
D. Yes, but only because there was an agreement and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement took place.
Adam, Bob and Charlie are college roommates. They agree to rob the 1st Federal Reserve Bank of Mudville, Ga. Bob, unbeknownst to the other two, steals some ski masks to use in the robbery. Just prior to stealing the ski masks, the bank’s charter was revoked – the bank no longer exists. Although the bank no longer exists, the beautiful brick bank building is still standing? Are Adam, Bob and Charlie going to be criminally liable for a conspiracy to rob the bank?
A. No, because the bank’s charter has been revoked.
B. No, because there can be no conspiracy, when the object of the agreement is impossible to obtain because the bank lost its charter prior to Bob stealing the ski masks.
C. Yes, because the bank building is still standing, thus the agreement is still valid.
D. Yes, because the overt act followed the agreement to rob the bank.
Adam, Bob and Charlie agree to rob the 2nd Federal Reserve Bank of Mudville, Ga. Bob, without telling the other two, steals guns for the job. Later in the day, Bob secretly enlists Dave to be an extra lookout. Dave does not know the other members, but does agree to be just the lookout and nothing more. Bob, on his way back to a meeting with Adam and Charlie, steals a new van for use in the robbery and kills the van driver in the process of stealing it, so that there would be no witnesses. After this theft but before the robbery, Charlie tells Adam he wants out of this idiotic plan and goes to the movies. When the bank is robbed, Dave never shows up to be the lookout. During the robbery, a bank guard is killed. After the bank is robbed, Dave turns himself into the police and confesses. Which of the following correctly identifies the entire criminal liability of a member to the conspiracy?
A. Adam’s liability: theft of guns, theft of van, murder of the van driver, bank robbery and murder of bank guard.
B. Bob’s liability: conspiracy to rob the bank, theft of guns, murder of the van driver, bank robbery and murder of the bank guard.
C. Charlie’s liability: theft of the guns, theft of the van, and murder of the van driver.
D. Dave’s liability: theft of the van, murder of the van driver, bank robber, murder of the bank guard and conspiracy to rob the bank.
Sue, Allie, and Phoebe agree to rob the 1st Federal Reserve Bank of Waycross, Ga. Sue, without telling the other two, steals guns for the job. Later in the day, Allie secretly enlists Billie Bob to be an extra lookout at the bank robbery. Billie Bob does not know the other members, but does agree to be just the lookout and nothing more. Allie on her way to a meeting with Sue and Phoebe, steals a new BMW for use as the getaway car in the robbery. She kills the BMW driver in the process of stealing it. After this theft but before the robbery, Phoebe tells Sue that she is thinking about quitting the conspiracy and goes to a spa to unwind and think about it. When the bank is robbed, Billie Bob never shows up to be the lookout, because he was being chased by police for stealing a diamond ring he planned to give to Allie, because she asked him to join in the bank robbery. While Phoebe is still at the spa, the bank is robbed and a bank guard is killed by Allie. After the bank is robbed, Billie Bob is caught by the police. Which of the following correctly identifies the entire criminal liability of a member to the conspiracy?
A. Allie by virtue of being a co-conspirator is guilty of all criminal offenses committed by all co-conspirators.
B. Sue is liable for every criminal offense committed by her co-conspirators to include conspiracy to rob the bank, bank robbery and murder of the bank guard.
C. Billie Bob is liable for all criminal offenses committed by every co-conspirator to include his theft of the ring.
D. Phoebe is liable for theft of the guns, theft of the BMW, the murder of the BMW driver, conspiracy to rob the bank, bank robbery and murder of the bank guard.
Larry, Curly and Moe agree to rob the 3rd Federal Reserve Bank of Mudville., Ga. Curly, unbeknownst to the others, goes to a pawn shop and steals 3 automatic rifles to use in the robbery. Larry then steals a painters van to use in the robbery and has it repainted with water based paint so it can be easily washed to change its color. Thereafter, Moe talks his girlfriend Suzi Q into being a lookout. Just prior to robbing the bank, Larry, realizing they are the 3 Stooges, gets cold feet and calls the cops and confesses to what he did in the scheme. The cops round up Moe and are looking for Curly – they don’t know anything about Suzi Q being involved (yet). Larry, readily confess to his part in the proposed bank robbery. Later the same day, Suzi Q, not realizing that some of the others have been arrested, decides that if she is going to be a lookout she will need a gun just in case something happens, so she shoplifts a .45 caliber pistol at busy gun show. Which of the following correctly identifies the criminal liability of one of the co-conspirators?
A. Curly is only criminally liable for theft of the automatic rifles and shoplifting of the .45 pistoland bank robbery.
B. Larry is only liable for theft of the van, shoplifting of the .45 pistol and bank robbery.
C. Moe is only liable for theft of the automatic rifles, theft of the van, shoplifting of the .45 pistol.
D. Suzi Q is only liable for shoplifting the .45 caliber pistol and conspiracy to rob the bank.
Federal agents obtain a search warrant for a house located at 61 Maple Street, Brunswick, GA. The warrant authorizes agents to seize fraud-related documents and papers from the residence. While executing the warrant, agents encounter the homeowners, Jack and Rhonda, along with their neighbor Barry who had come over to borrow their blender. Under the authority of the search warrant, which individuals can agents frisk for weapons or search for evidence?
A. None
B. Jack & Rhonda
C. Jack, Rhonda, & Barry
D. Only Jack
Federal agents obtain a warrant to search Brown’s house for drugs & firearms. Brown’s vehicles are not included on the search warrant as property that the agents are authorized to search. When the agents arrive, they find Brown’s pickup truck parked in the driveway next to his house and the SUV parked on a street in front of his house. Which of these vehicles can the agents search under the authority of the search warrant for Brown’s house?
A. Neither the pickup truck nor the SUV
B. The pickup truck only
C. The SUV only
D. Both the pickup truck & SUV
{"name":"Understanding Title III and Electronic Surveillance Law", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Test your knowledge of Title III and electronic surveillance law with our comprehensive quiz designed for aspiring legal professionals and enthusiasts alike. This quiz covers various aspects of the law regarding wiretaps, electronic communications, surveillance techniques, and the legal ramifications surrounding these actions.Featuring 26 multiple-choice questions, you will be challenged to apply your understanding of legal principles:Explore scenarios involving wire communicationsUnderstand the requirements for obtaining warrantsExamine the legality of surveillance methods in specific contexts","img":"https:/images/course8.png"}
Powered by: Quiz Maker